W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > November 2008

[minutes] BPWG 2008-11-06

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:29:20 +0100
Message-ID: <49131B60.8070606@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>


The minutes of today's meeting are available at:

... and copied as text below.

A few actions for everyone:

1/ Answer the questionnaire for next F2F. I just sent a reminder:

2/ Ask your AC Rep to fill out the AC Review form on mobileOK Basic:

3/ Review Dom's proposal for BP1.5:

4/ Read Jeff's review and comment:


06 Nov 2008


       [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/4912B896.6010800@mtld.mobi

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-bpwg-irc


           jo, Francois, jeffs, Adam, dom, yeliz, abel, nacho, SeanP,
           kai, Phil_Archer, Bruce

           DavidStorey, Miguel, Manrique, Sangwhan, rob


           francois, adam


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review F2F
          2. [6]Seoul F2F
          3. [7]MobileOK Basic Tests
          4. [8]Update on Accessibility
          5. [9]MobileOK Scheme
          6. [10]CT
          7. [11]BP1.5
          8. [12]BP2
          9. [13]Jeff on the ETSI document
         10. [14]Jonathan's Proposal for Microformat for mobileOK
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

Review F2F

    Jo: First day on CT, broke back of LC comments. Jo is still
    integrating comments.
    ... day 2 decided there would be no machine readable MobileOK...
    ... heard to Korean MobileOK.
    ... discussed MWABP + various reports on Powder / DDR / and mobile
    Web for Social Development.

Seoul F2F

    Jo: 11 responses so far, need some more responses.

    <francois> [16]Questionnaire on next F2F in Seoul

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-Seoul-2009/

    <dom> [17]Responses to survey on going to Seoul for next F2F

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-Seoul-2009/results

    Jo: open for another week or so.

    francois: can Adam come in fact (indicated he might not be able to).

    Adam: I will try my very best. Probably will make it.

    <dom> probably worth sending a reminder?

    Jo: Can everyone please answer the questionnaire. Francois will send
    a reminder.

MobileOK Basic Tests

    Jo: Mobile okay has gone to PR !

    <francois> [18]Proposed Rec of mobileOK Basic Tests

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20081103/

    francois: To get to Rec we call to AC representatives, final date
    for comments is 1st Dec.

    <dom> Please ask your AC Rep to send a review

    francois: depending on support we receive we can then hopefully move
    forward to Recommendation.
    ... encourage us to pass news to AC Rep or fill our the form is you
    are the AC Rep for your organization.

    <dom> [19]AC Review form for mobileOK Basic

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/mobileOK-basic10-tests/

    <Zakim> dom, you wanted to mention member testimonials, press

    dom: We are also going to have a press release and publish member
    ... If you want to have your organization associated with the press
    release you should start working on getting a testimonial together.

Update on Accessibility

    Yeliz: Not much change right now.

    francois: Yeliz's document will be published as final work. Alan's
    published as updated working draft. At which point we will review.
    ... Will then move to publish document as a Working Group Note.

MobileOK Scheme

    Jo: I have published the draft but not updated the link...
    ... Hopefully we'll have the licence etc done before MobileOK goes
    to rec.


    francois: Reviewed last call comments and Jo is updating draft.


    <dom> [20]Dom's proposed rewrite for BP 1.5


    <dom> ACTION-872?

    <trackbot> ACTION-872 -- Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux to work on
    reformulating 4 "tests" of BP 1.5 -- due 2008-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW


      [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/872

    Jo: Dom has done his action, action on everyone else to respond.

    Kai: Thank you to Dom for reworking the document. Believe this is
    pretty tight. Request to the group for feedback so Kai can continue
    with that format.


    Adam: Have folding in comments from the F2F and will share early
    next week.

Jeff on the ETSI document

    Jo: Action-875 should have been on the agenda. Jeff to comment on
    the ETSI document.

    <jo> [22]Jeff's comments on ETSI doc

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Oct/0031.html

    jeffs: Guidelines for generic UI elements for 3G terminals... Have
    sent a review email to the list.
    ... there are some areas where we could do work on our stuff in
    response, but want to get some feedback from the group before
    digging much deeper.
    ... Main document is "pretty big"... Overview document (the one
    under review) is only a few pages long.

    <jeffs> ETSI DEG 202 972 V 0.30 (2008-06-02)



    <brucel> apologies to all for being late; absorbed in a project and
    just noticed time

    Jo: Main document is 44 pages... Two things we could do: 1) Provide
    feedback. 2) Use material to reinforce documents.
    ... We should restrict feedback to "we are concerned with point XXX"
    but don't want to get in the position of contributing text.

    jeffs: Agreed.

    jo: In terms of what we use ourselves, the question is what document
    is this most pertinent to.

    jeffs: The only part I disagree with is 5.4 Specialised User

    <francois> "In the field of portable devices, it is not realistic to
    assume a standardization process similar to that which defined the
    PC user interface."

    <jeffs> "In the field of portable devices, it is not realistic to
    assume a standardization process similar to that which defined the
    PC user interface."

    <jeffs> from in 5.4 Specialized user interfaces of ETSI DEG 202 972
    V 0.30 (2008-06-02)

    jo: In summary -- we need to read Jeff's review and form a
    collective opinion. We will put this on the agenda for next time.

Jonathan's Proposal for Microformat for mobileOK

    <jo> [24]mobileOK Korea proposed microformat

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Oct/0065.html

    <jo> [25]Jonathan's proposal

      [25] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhpvgnmn_68dwzhntdt

    jo: I think what Jonathan is saying here that getting browsers to
    understand Powder is quite hard, but it would be easier in this

    PhilA: I have drafted a response which I have sent to powder WG
    members first.

    <brucel> Can I point out that the microformat has an accessibility
    mistake when it claims "Human vs. ISO8601 dates problem solved"

    PhilA: What Jonathan has done has create a microformat based on
    Powder work.
    ... one of the differences is that the description is separate to
    the document it describes.
    ... Jonathan's proposal would put a lot of extra bytes into the
    XHTML document.

    <JonathanJ> I agree that point.

    PhilA: so Phil's questions whether this is a question worth
    ... but on the otherhand, Jonathan's point that microformats are
    well supported is valid.

    <jeffs> seems to me there might be a way to point to the meta-data
    rather than to embed it... is there a reasonable and
    small-byte-count approach to that??

    PhilA: depends what you are trying to do. No problem per se with
    making a microformat based on Powder.
    ... if you lose the ability to attribute who is making the claim
    that is a core part of POWDER that would be lost.

    Phil will be posting his comments to the list soon.

    <JonathanJ> I think microformat can made in simplest way.

    jeffs: What we're talking about is metadata... The objections about
    large byte count are reasonable, so was wondering if there was a
    reasonable mechanism for microformat to point to metadata file?

    Phil: Three ways this is supported: 1. LINK REL; 2. HTTP LINK; 3.
    RDF annotation.

    <jo> (Phil discusses <link rel="describedBy">)

    <JonathanJ> I think my propose will be one of additional method for

    <dom> RDFa is not compatible with XHTML basic

    jo: Pointing out that MobileOK requires valid XHTML1.1, RDFa might
    not qualify. Would need to ensure that a microformat was valid XHTML

    <dom> but most microformats can be used in XHTML Basic

    <JonathanJ> OK

    <jo> summary for Jonathan: Phil will post to list under ISSUE-283 a
    more extensive version of his comments and we can discuss on list,

    <PhilA> presumably link is OK in XHTML Basic?

    <jo> yes, Phil

    <PhilA> and HTTP Link is independent of any format

    <JonathanJ> OK. If it possible, I will try to find more reasonable

    <JonathanJ> please, send me what is the problem. I need comments. :)

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:30:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:52 UTC